Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to electronic payment and check presentment systems and methods, and more particularly, to centrally accountable peer-to-peer payment clearing, electronic check presentment and the exchange of digital check images. The present invention also generally relates to a distributed system architecture for implementing these systems and methods.
Related Art
Various programs are being implemented by financial institutions to transition the traditional paper check collection and return process into an electronic process. Such efforts are being undertaken to reduce the costs, time delays, and other problems associated with the processing of the over 40 billion paper checks collected per year in the United States.
In the conventional, paper-based check collection system, most paper checks are physically delivered by the writer of the particular check (i.e., the payor) to the person or entity to whom the check is made out (i.e., the payee). The check is deposited in the payee's financial institution, which is referred to as the bank of first deposit or the depositary bank. The check is physically delivered by the depositary bank to the bank on which the check is drawn (i.e., the paying bank) and ultimately back to the payor. Generally, checks delivered to a paying bank are accompanied by a cash letter, which lists all of the checks being delivered and information about each check, including the amount of the check. Delivering the paper check from the depositary bank to the paying bank can involve numerous check sorting processes and multiple intermediary collecting banks as the check moves through the collection process. If the check for some reason is not honored by the paying bank, e.g., because the payor has insufficient funds, then the check travels back to the depositary bank and the payee.
This check collection system, in which billions of paper checks are physically shuffled back and forth among various entities, entails significant costs and time delays. Moreover, due to banking regulations, the collection process must take place within strict schedules. For example, the paying bank has only one to one and a half days from the time a check is presented to decide whether to return the check and recover its payment before the check is final. Also, the payee may lose interest for each day's delay in the collection process. Of course, the collection process is vulnerable to physical phenomenon, such as transportation delays caused by severe weather.
Electronic check presentment (ECP) is one type of electronic system that is being used to supplement the traditional paper check collection process. Currently, in ECP, the depositary bank or a collecting bank electronically reads from each paper check the account number, routing transit number (RTN), dollar amount and check number, which are printed on the check in a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) line (this information is referred to as the “MICR information”), and possibly other information as well. This information is used to create a separate electronic record, referred to as an electronic check or cash letter, that is sent to the paying bank. The original paper checks are often sent at a later time.
For example, a depositary bank may electronically send an electronic cash letter for checks deposited on Monday, which will reach the paying bank by Monday evening. The paper checks usually arrive at the paying bank by the next day (Tuesday), in time for the returns process. After the paying bank receives the paper checks and reads the MICR data from them, it reconciles the paper checks with the electronic cash letter received earlier to determine missing or free items. The items to be returned, e.g., for lack of funds on deposit, are pulled and returned to the depositary bank. However, one disadvantage of this process is that it is not entirely paperless, that is, it still requires the movement of paper checks.
To reduce the movement of paper checks, check image exchange, also referred to as check truncation, has been generally proposed as an alternative. In check truncation, at some point in the check clearing process before the paper check reaches the check writer's bank, a digital image of the paper check is produced and sent in lieu thereof for further processing. The original paper check may then be stored and/or destroyed. However, check truncation has so far been limited in actual practice, for example, to imaging cancelled checks, and replacing conventional customer statements with on-line statements in which a check writer may view images of cancelled checks through the Internet, and if desired, selectively print them out. It would thus be desirable to have the checks truncated earlier in the clearing process, and specifically, to implement an ECP system with check truncation at the bank of first deposit, or at an intermediary bank, such as a clearing house or a Reserve Bank.
Another disadvantage relates to the architecture of the current ECP system. In particular, as shown in FIG. 1, one known and widely-used ECP system is based on a hub and spoke configuration. In this configuration, all electronic cash letters 100 are transmitted by the “spoke” depositary or collecting banks 102 (e.g., Bank A) to a central hub, switch 110, to be routed to “spoke” paying banks 104 (e.g., Banks B, C, and D). A number of cash letters 100, each of which is directed to a different paying bank 104, may be combined in a single electronic cash letter file 115 with a single file header 105. Upon receiving an electronic cash letter file 115, switch 110 deletes the file header 105, separates the combined file 115 into separate electronic cash letter files 120 for each paying bank, provides a new file header 125 for each file, and sends each file 120 into a separate queue 130 for each corresponding paying bank 104. The paying banks 104 then periodically retrieve the electronic cash letters 120 from their particular queue 130. Switch 110 also performs certain quality control functions, e.g., preventing processing of duplicate files, and reporting functions.
However, a hub and spoke configuration disadvantageously results in latency in the transfer of electronic cash letters due to processing time required at the central hub (switch). Such delays are particular significant if the electronic cash letter file is accompanied by check image data, as would be in an image exchange system. In addition, the operation of the central hub involves substantial redundant expense, because it must have the capacity to process every transaction in every file, even though each collecting and paying bank must process the transactions for its own purposes. Furthermore, this additional central processing is not necessary for the routing of transaction files, because modern telecommunications networks are capable of delivering files transmitted under protocols such as TCP/IP peer-to-peer, that is, without a central hub. In fact, such a central hub increases the risk of system wide failure for a payment clearing network because its failure would render the entire network unusable. To counter this vulnerability, payments network operators have had to create even more redundant systems at great expense.
Similar hub and spoke systems are used to clear other types of electronic payments (EP), including those initiated electronically or by use of credit or debit cards. These electronic payments are usually cleared in a manner similar to current ECP methods as described above. Payment system operators in the United States and most other countries operate separate, dedicated, specialized payment switches for each type of payment, including automated clearing house (ACH) entries, Giro transfers, credit card transactions and debit card transactions.
Most of these payment systems require the transmission of files including payment data, which may or may not be destined for multiple paying financial institutions, to a centralized payment switch. The payment switch separates transactions into distinct files for each paying institutions, which are then transmitted to the intended recipient or placed in a queue for later retrieval. Again, the use of a hub and spoke configuration in EP systems presents similar problems as described above in regard to ECP systems.
Accordingly, it would be desirable to have a system configuration that overcomes the problems associated with a hub and spoke configuration. Further, it would also be desirable to use such a system to process ECP data (with or without check images), EP data, or both.